Housing Value Explorer

Interactive research · ACS PUMS 2020–2024

Geographic variation in the drivers of predicted housing value

Explainable machine learning across California, Florida, New York, Tennessee, and Texas—tracking how the same fitted model relies on housing, financial, household, and geographic information.

5states
960.2Kdevelopment records
2020–23model development
2024temporal evaluation
268.9Krecords explained

01 · Research landscape

One study, five housing markets

The 2024 explanation set spans 268,930 owner-occupied one-family housing records. Survey-weighted aggregation keeps the descriptive and geographic summaries aligned with the study design.

California
79,636
Florida
52,892
New York
43,269
Tennessee
20,580
Texas
72,553

Unweighted 2024 record counts used for TreeSHAP; survey weights are applied during aggregation.

02 · Model explanations

What the selected model relies on

Geography is prominent, but mortgage payment, household income, property age, and room configuration supply the leading substantive signals.

Survey-weighted mean absolute TreeSHAP for 2024 records. Larger values mean the selected model relied more on the feature; units are not dollars.

01

Geography is modeled directly

State–PUMA has the largest global mean absolute SHAP value (0.344). It is shown separately so it does not obscure the substantive predictors.

02

Mortgage and income lead beyond geography

First-mortgage payment and household income are the first two non-geographic features in every state-level ranking.

Examine the drivers

03 · Geographic heterogeneity

The ranking is shared. The reliance is not identical.

State summaries reveal variation in how strongly the fitted model uses the same non-geographic features.

FeatureCaliforniaTennessee
First mortgage payment0.1750.140
Household income0.0850.085
Year built0.0330.077

For example, year built carries more than twice the mean absolute SHAP importance in Tennessee (0.077) than in California (0.033). This is variation in model explanation—not evidence of different causal effects.

04 · Validation

Selected before the clock moved forward

The 2024 data are not another random holdout. All model comparison and feature reduction occurred within 2020–2023 development folds; 2024 provides a temporal test of generalization.

Mean development CV MAE
$247,093
2024 temporal MAE
$275,639
2024 median absolute error
$113,951
2024 R²
0.318
See the model evidence
2020–2023 mean CV MAE2024 temporal MAE

Research safeguards

Explain the prediction. Preserve the limits.

01Development-only selection and reduction

02Temporal evaluation on all eligible 2024 records

03Survey-weighted TreeSHAP aggregation

04Approximate counties shown with overlap reliability